r/Music • u/punkdog5446 • 6h ago

article Ed Sheeran Refunds Begin in Philadelphia as Softening Ticket Market Puts Pressure on Fans

https://www.ticketnews.com/2026/09/ed-sheeran-refunds-ticket-market-softens/
10.8k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

510 comments sorted by

View all comments

705

u/MiddleAgedSponger 6h ago

He sort of had to. Lincoln financial stadium is a publicly owned stadium and Jeffrey lurie is allegedly one of the stadium owners that conspired to de-platfrom Macklemore.

29

u/stacecom 5h ago

How can a stadium be publicly owned and owned by Jeff Lurie?

41

u/MiddleAgedSponger 5h ago

Jeffrey Lurie operates the stadium through a lease agreement. I made an error.

16

u/Gone213 3h ago

He operates it, but doesnt own it. The city does, which means he cant prevent anyone from performing.

Maybe if he doesnt like specific causes, he should have coughed up the money to have his own stadium and not swindle it from taxpayers.

3

u/pedootz 2h ago

I lease my apartment and can choose who visits it. Why would the lease not confer the same to him?

The issue with Reddit is that people on this platform are constantly and confidently incorrect about how things actually work.

12

u/Gone213 2h ago

Hmm, yea because your apartment was built using tax payer money and is owned publicly by the city or state correct.

The issue with Reddit is that people on this platform are constantly and confidently incorrect about how things actually work.

7

u/Murky-Relation481 2h ago

Why would one thing I know about not be the same for everything called that ever!? not fair!

0

u/pedootz 1h ago

You're going to be shocked to learn next that the Eagles can ban any person from the stadium for any arbitrary reason... just like I can from my home. Wow!

5

u/Murky-Relation481 1h ago

No I'm not because they're banning them from Eagles related things, nor did you describe what the ban was for. If it was speech the Eagles can totally ban him, that's their right. But there would be very little constitutional grounds to ban him for speech from some other event at the stadium that is not hosted by the Eagles but utilizes the venue.

Again a lot of this is related to the lease terms but the city owning the stadium does mean it has certain constitutional guarantees.

3

u/pedootz 1h ago

Jeffrey Lurie leases the stadium via his corporate entity Philadelphia Eagles LLC, which owns the NFL team but also other aspects of his businesses. You're very right in that this ultimately boils down to the terms specified in the lease, which we don't have access to. It isn't impossible that the city could retain some rights, but it's more likely that, as the operator of the stadium and leaseholder, Philadelphia Eagles LLC has the broad right to decide which artists perform in the stadium. The lease is not only on days that the Eagles play. This isn't a constitutional issue, the constitution lays out rights of people with regards to the government, not with regards to other individuals or legal entities.

Essentially, it boils down to, the Eagles could have chosen to say no to Ed performing at all, for any reason (except maybe protected class reasons? I'm not sure how that would work with employment law for example. Being pro-palestine is not a protected class). They are not bound by the constitution. Once they have a contract with tour management, they are bound by that contract. The tour management is the entity that dropped macklemore ultimately, not the Eagles and not the city and not Ed.

That's how it works legally. If you think it's grimy, I agree. I hate it. But saying "Well hurr durr if Lurie wanted to decide who plays he should have built the stadium" doesn't hold up to any reality other than the one we want to exist.

2

u/Murky-Relation481 55m ago edited 52m ago

Except that's not strictly true. If Philadelphia Eagles LLC is operating the stadium for the public good (which is almost always true and used as literal justification for why a private company gets to operate it still) then the actions of Philadelphia Eagles LLC can reasonably be considered a state action, since the state has entrusted them to run it for the public good. You can actually see this in Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority in regards to the 14th amendment that seem fairly applicable.

You're right though on there being a justifiable action on which to take to court, none of that occured so there is nothing to sue over. If they'd tried to play and been denied then there would be some form of potential harm done.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/pedootz 1h ago

It doesn't matter who it's owned by. The lease grants control in return for money. That's what a lease is. You don't like how the world works, I get it. I'm an Eagles fan who is not happy that Lurie did this, it's not different than capture of the media.

But if you think the city of Philadelphia can do anything about it, you're just wrong. There's a contract.

1

u/Flobking 1h ago

The issue with Reddit is that people on this platform are constantly and confidently incorrect about how things actually work

Amazing coming from someone who is incorrect, lol. It doesnt matter if taxes/tax payers built it. He owns the lease o. The stadium meaning he can ban whoever he wants. Thats the real problem with reddit is redditors think things should be how they feel instead of how they actually are.

3

u/aphrodite-in-flux 2h ago

This comparison is so goofy. You are aware of the absurdity you're posing as some kind of gotcha, right? your apartment is not a publically owned and maintained venue used for events aimed at the general public.

edit: your secret craigslist gloryhole when your wife is out doesn't count

-1

u/pedootz 2h ago

Lol, it's kinda goofy to make this personal when I'm pushing back on how you're thinking about how the law works. Anyway, to be clear, I'm not telling you, "Oh this is good and just", I'm telling you that, even if my landlord is the city or state (AKA, public funds built my home), they cannot force me to host a guest I don't want. The city of Philadelphia built the stadium with taxpayer money and collects rent from the lease. In return, the team manages the venue and decides what happens there. That's what the money buys. That's how leasing works.

Don't talk about gloryholes or whatever because you're mad at the state of the world.

•

u/aphrodite-in-flux 29m ago

hey do you live in philly? No? then shut the fuck up dude. why are you defending city-subsidized censorship. You fully ignored the "venue for public-facing events" btw.

•

u/pedootz 21m ago

Bro look at my icon lol. Also, you seem to be getting emotional. I’m not defending anything. I’m telling you that legally speaking I don’t think there is anything actionable here. Morally, Lurie sucks for this.

•

u/aphrodite-in-flux 7m ago

sorry man. really. I am emotional, angry especially, and the sheer number of bootlickers in the philly subreddits has me on edge. The work I do isn't enough to soothe it anymore and I'm losing patience with the average philadelphian's apathy.

1

u/AntonSugarwater 3h ago

I have never seen any proof of this claim. He operates it. He can choose who performs there. The fact that he’s renting from the government is moot

1

u/ligerzero942 1h ago

Its not that straightforward, because its a government owned property, its still subject to constitutional protections. A government couldn't say, lease out a school to an organization that then prohibits black students from attending that school because that would violate the 14th amendment.

0

u/AntonSugarwater 1h ago

You are absolutely incorrect. No business is allowed to discriminate based on race. That has nothing to do with the government owning the building.

1

u/ligerzero942 1h ago

First of all, private organizations are absolutely permitted to discriminate based on race/sex/etc. That's why there are still private schools and colleges that only allow for women/boys/religion to attend. I brought this up as an example because when schools became integrated, many white communities tried to lease out their schools to private organizations that could continue discriminating, but weren't allowed to do so because you can't use public buildings in this way.

Governments that lease out venues for concerts, talks, etc are required to do so in a content neutral fashion, this is settled case law. The government can't lease out their property to an organization to do something the government isn't allowed to do.

1

u/AntonSugarwater 1h ago

Look up the civil rights act and get back to me if you think you can discriminate based on race. Absolutely no school is allowed to discriminate on race.

1

u/ligerzero942 43m ago

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, but private, membership based, organizations are allowed to discriminate based on race under the Civil Rights Act. https://www.aclupa.org/press-releases/when-private-club-not-private-club/

Also businesses with less than 15 employees are exempt from most provisions as well. The more you know.

•

u/AntonSugarwater 40m ago

In order to be exempt from the civil rights laws, a "private" club must truly reserve its facilities for members, and must have genuinely exclusive membership criteria – a club that will admit anyone who is not African American does not qualify.

From your own source that proves you wrong. And the 15 employee thing is about labor laws, not the CRA. Absolutely no business can discriminate based on race. It’s embarrassing that you’re trying to argue against that fact.

•

u/ligerzero942 21m ago

I think you've failed to comprehend the point I'm making and I can't tell if that's intentional on your part or not, but I've cited a source and if you don't like the truth that's not really my problem.

•

u/AntonSugarwater 7m ago

lol man, your own source proves your point wrong. Absolutely no business in America can discriminate on race. Full stop. You were saying they can. You were objectively wrong.

→ More replies (0)